Sunday, March 17, 2013

Hate Fact of the Week

People differ.  People differ as individuals and by race.  I know I repeat that a lot, but for every time I mention that people differ, a thousand idiots say that "people are the same all over," an assertion for which there is zero evidence.  The evidence is that human groups differ in intellect and temperament.  The evidence is so obvious that science never needed to discover it, but only to confirm it.  Belief in human equality, then, is anti-scientific and can be thought of as a religious position, not an objective one.

Some of the more sophisticated egalitarians will admit, when put on the spot, that the human races, when tested, do demonstrate significant variations in intellect and temperament, but quickly attribute those differences to environment.  It's popular, for example, to blame the average Black African 70 I. Q. to poor nutrition.  And that might even be a small part of the reason, because Black Africans who live outside have average I. Q's as high as 85. And of course there's the one-size-fits-all "racism" explanation, which explains everything, just like shouts of "heresy!" win arguments in religious matters.  I told you human equality was a matter of faith, not of fact.

Well, all right, let's suppose, despite everything, that environment does have a huge effect on intellect and temperament.  Let's get to people before the environment has had a chance to have an effect.  Let's  test newborn babies to see how they compare.  Well, that's already been done.  From Greg Cochran's blog:

Dan Freedman’s babies

Daniel Freedman was a professor of anthropology at the University of Chicago.  For his doctoral thesis, he did adoption studies with dogs.  He had noticed that different dog breeds had different personalities, and thought it would be interesting to see if personality was inborn, or if it was somehow caused by the way in which the mother raised her puppies.  Totally inborn.  Little beagles were irrepressibly friendly.  Shetland sheepdogs  were most sensitive to a loud voice or the slightest punishment. Wire-haired terriers were so tough and aggressive that Dan had to wear gloves when playing with puppies that were only three weeks old. Basenjis were aloof and independent.
He decided to try the same thing with human infants of different breeds.  Excuse me, different races. He looked at newborn babies in a hospital in San Francisco where his first child had been born. He compared Cantonese babies with babies of Northern European origin. The division of sexes was the same, the mothers were the same age, they had about the same number of previous children, and they had been administered the same drugs in the same amounts  during labor.
White babies started to cry more easily, and once they started, they were more difficult to console. Chinese babies adapted to almost any position in which they were placed; for example, when placed face down in their cribs, they tended to keep their faces buried in the sheets rather than immediately turning to one side, as the Caucasian babies did. They briefly pressed the baby’s nose with a cloth, forcing him to breath with his mouth. Most white (and black) babies fight this maneuver by immediately turning away or swiping at the cloth with their hands, and this is reported in Western pediatric textbooks as normal. While the average Chinese baby would simply lay on his back, breathing through the mouth, accepting the cloth without a fight.  There are movies of this: they are apparently quite striking, and should be on YouTube. I talked to a prof who showed these movies to students in a class at an Ivy league university: they really, really hated it.  They should emigrate to a different reality – one of those probability lines outside the Blight, full of butt-kicking pixies,  avuncular gay men, Melanesian super-hackers,  and female Fields medalists.  And unicorns.
Later, he looked at Navaho babies: they’re like Chinese, only more so.
Japanese babies are like Chinese, but less so: more irritable, but not as irritable as white kids.


  1. HBD - period.

    Denial of such is no different that arguing that Newton was wrong regarding gravity.

  2. The Blight? You mean the Vernor Vinge Blight? I always like Anderson's "Brainwave" myself.

    I read about the cloth experiment a few years ago.

    1. I figured he meant the Keith Laumer blight.

    2. I suppose all Blights are the same. It's not like Blight means anything good.

  3. interesting, but it still lacks some of the qualities of a true experiment, making it a quasi-experiment at best. What was the sample size? Were the nurses aware of the experiment or were they blinded? Were they all treated by the same group or nurses or were they located on different floors/areas. Also did the nurses treat all the babies the same or were there subtle differences, were they observed to make sure these confounding variables were taken into account? I'm not saying that the experiment was of no value, only to point out that not everything can be controlled for. Especially in an observation experiment such as this in the "real world" the opportunity for uncontrolled variable to skew the data is huge.
    Despite all that, the info presented is interesting if nothing else, although a longitudinal study would be preferred to see if these differences persist in noticeable ways or disappear entirely over time.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.